Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.networking > #4551 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Bob Tennent <rdtennent@tennent.ca> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2020-06-01 15:53 +0000 |
| Last post | 2020-06-06 16:19 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 76 — 13 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.networking
routing Bob Tennent <rdtennent@tennent.ca> - 2020-06-01 15:53 +0000
Re: routing David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-06-01 18:31 +0200
Re: routing William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2020-06-01 22:30 +0000
Re: routing "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2020-06-02 14:50 +0200
Re: routing William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2020-06-02 19:54 +0000
Re: routing Ken Hart <kwhart1@frontier.com> - 2020-06-01 18:35 -0400
Re: routing "David W. Hodgins" <dwhodgins@nomail.afraid.org> - 2020-06-01 19:00 -0400
Re: routing David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-06-02 02:18 +0200
Re: routing "David W. Hodgins" <dwhodgins@nomail.afraid.org> - 2020-06-01 20:32 -0400
Re: routing David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-06-02 08:12 +0200
Re: routing "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2020-06-02 14:54 +0200
Re: routing David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-06-02 15:53 +0200
Re: routing "David W. Hodgins" <dwhodgins@nomail.afraid.org> - 2020-06-02 11:19 -0400
Re: routing "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2020-06-02 21:25 +0200
Re: routing Johann Beretta <beretta@nun-ya-bizness.com> - 2020-06-04 20:44 -0700
Re: routing Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2020-06-05 17:31 +0000
Re: routing Johann Beretta <beretta@nun-ya-bizness.com> - 2020-06-10 09:20 -0700
Re: routing Johann Beretta <beretta@nun-ya-bizness.com> - 2020-06-04 20:46 -0700
Re: routing "David W. Hodgins" <dwhodgins@nomail.afraid.org> - 2020-06-02 09:38 -0400
Re: routing Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2020-06-02 16:21 +0000
Re: routing David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-06-02 21:15 +0200
Re: routing "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2020-06-02 21:36 +0200
Re: routing Johann Beretta <beretta@nun-ya-bizness.com> - 2020-06-04 20:48 -0700
Re: routing William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2020-06-05 04:54 +0000
Re: routing "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2020-06-02 21:30 +0200
Re: routing Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> - 2020-06-03 13:51 +0300
Re: routing "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2020-06-03 13:30 +0200
Re: routing Johann Beretta <beretta@nun-ya-bizness.com> - 2020-06-04 20:51 -0700
Re: routing "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2020-06-05 15:23 +0200
Re: routing Johann Beretta <beretta@nun-ya-bizness.com> - 2020-06-10 00:19 -0700
Re: routing William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2020-06-10 17:44 +0000
Re: routing Johann Beretta <beretta@nun-ya-bizness.com> - 2020-06-04 20:41 -0700
Re: routing William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2020-06-05 04:50 +0000
Re: routing David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-06-05 09:44 +0200
Re: routing Johann Beretta <beretta@nun-ya-bizness.com> - 2020-06-10 00:36 -0700
Re: routing Johann Beretta <beretta@nun-ya-bizness.com> - 2020-06-04 20:40 -0700
Re: routing William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2020-06-05 04:47 +0000
Re: routing David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-06-05 09:53 +0200
Re: routing Johann Beretta <beretta@nun-ya-bizness.com> - 2020-06-10 00:41 -0700
Re: routing "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2020-06-10 12:40 +0200
Re: routing Johann Beretta <beretta@nun-ya-bizness.com> - 2020-06-10 09:25 -0700
Re: routing Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2020-06-12 09:45 +0000
Re: routing "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2020-06-12 13:55 +0200
Re: routing David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-06-12 15:45 +0200
Re: routing "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2020-06-12 23:21 +0200
Re: routing Johann Beretta <beretta@nun-ya-bizness.com> - 2020-06-12 22:55 -0700
Re: routing "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2020-06-05 15:34 +0200
Re: routing Johann Beretta <beretta@nun-ya-bizness.com> - 2020-06-10 00:45 -0700
Re: routing "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2020-06-10 12:52 +0200
Re: routing Johann Beretta <beretta@nun-ya-bizness.com> - 2020-06-04 20:35 -0700
Re: routing "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2020-06-05 15:38 +0200
Re: routing Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be> - 2020-06-05 15:46 +0200
Re: routing "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2020-06-06 00:00 +0200
Re: routing Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2020-06-09 18:57 +0000
Re: routing "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2020-06-09 21:08 +0200
Re: routing Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2020-06-09 22:07 +0000
Re: routing "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2020-06-10 00:36 +0200
Re: routing Johann Beretta <beretta@nun-ya-bizness.com> - 2020-06-10 00:48 -0700
Re: routing Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be> - 2020-06-05 15:45 +0200
Re: routing William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2020-06-01 22:21 +0000
Re: routing Bob Tennent <rdtennent@tennent.ca> - 2020-06-02 02:39 +0000
Re: routing William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2020-06-02 04:30 +0000
Re: routing Bob Tennent <rdtennent@tennent.ca> - 2020-06-02 12:03 +0000
Re: routing Bob Tennent <rdtennent@tennent.ca> - 2020-06-02 20:34 +0000
Re: routing "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2020-06-02 23:08 +0200
Re: routing William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2020-06-02 21:20 +0000
Re: routing Bob Tennent <rdtennent@tennent.ca> - 2020-06-05 15:25 +0000
Re: routing "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2020-06-06 00:02 +0200
Re: routing Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2020-06-06 08:04 +0000
Re: routing "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2020-06-06 12:00 +0200
Re: routing Bob Tennent <rdtennent@tennent.ca> - 2020-06-06 10:43 +0000
Re: routing "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2020-06-06 13:35 +0200
Re: routing Bob Tennent <rdtennent@tennent.ca> - 2020-06-06 12:04 +0000
Re: routing "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2020-06-06 20:35 +0200
Re: routing Johann Beretta <beretta@nun-ya-bizness.com> - 2020-06-10 00:55 -0700
Re: routing William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2020-06-06 16:19 +0000
Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 Next page →
| From | Johann Beretta <beretta@nun-ya-bizness.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-06-10 09:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <rbr1hk$ojd$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #4618 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On 6/10/20 3:40 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote: > On 10/06/2020 09.41, Johann Beretta wrote: >> On 6/4/20 9:47 PM, William Unruh wrote: >> >>> >>> Since all of those conversions HAVE to take place anyway, the only >>> difference is the bandwidth (the 56Kb/s-- and besides phone modems can >>> do better than 56Kb) >>>> >> >> Baloney. 56kb/s is the best you can hope to do with the analog phone >> system. ISDN can go faster, but that's not analog. >> >> I worked for AT&T for a long time and could explain WHY that's the hard >> limit, but for the sake of brevity.... > > You are not the only one here that worked for a telco. > Well, I didn't see anyone else chiming in and the claim that analog modems can go faster than 56k is baloney, at least for North America. My mentioning of it is simply to notify that I'm not an outsider making guesses. I have a lot of experience with POTS.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-06-12 09:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnre6jlj.23c.dan@djph.net> |
| In reply to | #4621 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 Johann Beretta wrote: > This is a multi-part message in MIME format. > --------------2BB770AB7F24D637FD1C4A9B > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > > On 6/10/20 3:40 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote: >> On 10/06/2020 09.41, Johann Beretta wrote: >>> On 6/4/20 9:47 PM, William Unruh wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Since all of those conversions HAVE to take place anyway, the only >>>> difference is the bandwidth (the 56Kb/s-- and besides phone modems ca= > n >>>> do better than 56Kb) >>>>> >>> >>> Baloney.=C2=A0 56kb/s is the best you can hope to do with the analog p= > hone >>> system.=C2=A0 ISDN can go faster, but that's not analog. >>> >>> I worked for AT&T for a long time and could explain WHY that's the har= > d >>> limit, but for the sake of brevity.... >>=20 >> You are not the only one here that worked for a telco. >>=20 > > Well, I didn't see anyone else chiming in and the claim that analog > modems can go faster than 56k is baloney, at least for North America. > > My mentioning of it is simply to notify that I'm not an outsider making > guesses. I have a lot of experience with POTS. Never worked for a telco, but I've done my fair share of dealing with PBX handing off to a PRI/BRI ... If I never see another shoddy PBX installation, it'll be too soon. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCgAdFiEE3asj+xn6fYUcweBnbWVw5UznKGAFAl7jTrMACgkQbWVw5Uzn KGBY4RAAkn3bOu/Lu5aE156T6DKIHaEaddKXurjT2NLJa3tEk4cIjXstbvECIqYJ sBRrDv6dhn+T4lg/lhY7tLcnbyrRU9E/bADe7EPwLcICz1UBJhkS5YfIUv+unFkG gb3N7Zs2HMRXoNa/SktygZ5xmAHh+zlXOvDWdF3WbKASAjAFHRA72TYe7Xb+xFrS hMfWFe2/h2PGE1WgsawHpa0vraX2ZJQO67LsUa4tHqLvTYjTxL8/Pmtm5JkiGPXu X20PLJNB+r1Pgu+UWQSQvS3pOlNVdeLDwr6p+XICfBLC4gfa7QSFvUUu8ynwmk3B nC76zXeRrA8NgmaXeAxcJDqoet7Np2MUiynYqyQgUi4hWULqh7N/CZILdkqhp3gQ kyMiHNWm9QDZvyvnOCQTA4zc/CiABGTcn78Kr6zqVYPmoLZpP61kChejKpqe/T0E FRvIflNOuu6ngvr7RqoqLdoZ1tzdwSsPDZWWnt8YpjUVvz8I/5QTCpaTpmP1kUrE z5k16AGb615PipyHwSW/wisNOBOnYWJEjO/5ykhxbIwmkleip7s3H6glyvjr+cLL pHQeAvMr+HSxQysQuYtgR3/c9I69Y6h5kzokZsTfn/y7W/11kMogK+L8h3xRwJnZ 3VnyZi2yAYrskUpNCSFCG0bK4iai81sVrkpQQwaY3BOFvanZ01E= =FCoC -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- |_|O|_| Github: https://github.com/dpurgert |_|_|O| PGP: DDAB 23FB 19FA 7D85 1CC1 E067 6D65 70E5 4CE7 2860 |O|O|O| Former PGP: 05CA 9A50 3F2E 1335 4DC5 4AEE 8E11 DDF3 1279 A281
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-06-12 13:55 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <e37crg-p7r.ln1@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #4621 |
On 10/06/2020 18.25, Johann Beretta wrote: > On 6/10/20 3:40 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote: >> On 10/06/2020 09.41, Johann Beretta wrote: >>> On 6/4/20 9:47 PM, William Unruh wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Since all of those conversions HAVE to take place anyway, the only >>>> difference is the bandwidth (the 56Kb/s-- and besides phone modems can >>>> do better than 56Kb) >>>>> >>> >>> Baloney. 56kb/s is the best you can hope to do with the analog phone >>> system. ISDN can go faster, but that's not analog. >>> >>> I worked for AT&T for a long time and could explain WHY that's the hard >>> limit, but for the sake of brevity.... >> >> You are not the only one here that worked for a telco. >> > > Well, I didn't see anyone else chiming in and the claim that analog > modems can go faster than 56k is baloney, at least for North America. David Brown did, 5 days before you did. > > My mentioning of it is simply to notify that I'm not an outsider making > guesses. I have a lot of experience with POTS. > -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-06-12 15:45 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <rc00te$dg6$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #4624 |
On 12/06/2020 13:55, Carlos E.R. wrote: > On 10/06/2020 18.25, Johann Beretta wrote: >> On 6/10/20 3:40 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote: >>> On 10/06/2020 09.41, Johann Beretta wrote: >>>> On 6/4/20 9:47 PM, William Unruh wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Since all of those conversions HAVE to take place anyway, the only >>>>> difference is the bandwidth (the 56Kb/s-- and besides phone modems can >>>>> do better than 56Kb) >>>>>> >>>> >>>> Baloney. 56kb/s is the best you can hope to do with the analog phone >>>> system. ISDN can go faster, but that's not analog. >>>> >>>> I worked for AT&T for a long time and could explain WHY that's the hard >>>> limit, but for the sake of brevity.... >>> >>> You are not the only one here that worked for a telco. >>> >> >> Well, I didn't see anyone else chiming in and the claim that analog >> modems can go faster than 56k is baloney, at least for North America. > > David Brown did, 5 days before you did. > I don't work for a telco, but I /do/ know that analogue modems on normal telephone lines never went faster than 56 kbps, which is right up against the theoretical maximum limit. Any modem claiming to transfer more than that used compression. And 56 kbps is download speed - for upload towards the exchange, 33 kbps is the top.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-06-12 23:21 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <h88drg-4ra.ln1@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #4625 |
On 12/06/2020 15.45, David Brown wrote: > On 12/06/2020 13:55, Carlos E.R. wrote: >> On 10/06/2020 18.25, Johann Beretta wrote: >>> On 6/10/20 3:40 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote: >>>> On 10/06/2020 09.41, Johann Beretta wrote: >>>>> On 6/4/20 9:47 PM, William Unruh wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Since all of those conversions HAVE to take place anyway, the only >>>>>> difference is the bandwidth (the 56Kb/s-- and besides phone modems can >>>>>> do better than 56Kb) >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Baloney. 56kb/s is the best you can hope to do with the analog phone >>>>> system. ISDN can go faster, but that's not analog. >>>>> >>>>> I worked for AT&T for a long time and could explain WHY that's the hard >>>>> limit, but for the sake of brevity.... >>>> >>>> You are not the only one here that worked for a telco. >>>> >>> >>> Well, I didn't see anyone else chiming in and the claim that analog >>> modems can go faster than 56k is baloney, at least for North America. >> >> David Brown did, 5 days before you did. >> > > I don't work for a telco, but I /do/ know that analogue modems on normal > telephone lines never went faster than 56 kbps, which is right up > against the theoretical maximum limit. Any modem claiming to transfer > more than that used compression. > > And 56 kbps is download speed - for upload towards the exchange, 33 kbps > is the top. Actually, it is not a theoretical limit, but a hard limit: the fact that the analog signal from your telephone is digitized at entry to the exchange, and the bit rate of that is precisely 56 kbs in the USA (64 in Europe). The "modem" at the telco may even be at another city, and they only see that digitized signal. The copper line might transfer more, but the modems would not see that. That more can be transmitted was proven later by implementing ADSL. Those machines had to be directly connected to the copper line going to the homes. There have been many changes in the phone technology, I wonder if there has been time to monetize it all. The wikipedia explains all these things in great detail, by the way. So now it is VoIP, and the bandwidth of the voice is not tied to that limit of 56 kbps - if the entire network is voip, which it is not. -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Johann Beretta <beretta@nun-ya-bizness.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-06-12 22:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <rc1pnr$8e1$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #4624 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On 6/12/20 4:55 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote: > > David Brown did, 5 days before you did. > And? I said "I didn't see". I didn't say "nobody else did". Remember too, not all messages propagate to all USENET servers with the same speed. Or, I may just have missed it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-06-05 15:34 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <d7upqg-pvn.ln1@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #4580 |
On 05/06/2020 05.40, Johann Beretta wrote: > On 6/1/20 4:00 PM, David W. Hodgins wrote: >> On Mon, 01 Jun 2020 18:35:56 -0400, Ken Hart <kwhart1@frontier.com> wrote: >> >>> On 6/1/20 12:31 PM, David Brown wrote: >>>> On 01/06/2020 17:53, Bob Tennent wrote: >>>>> I need a low-latency connection to a colleague in the >>>>> same city (Kingston Ont.) but who has a different ISP. >> >> The easiest way would be for both of you to get old fashioned modems, and >> create a direct link between the two computers, using land line telephone >> connections. >> >> Regards, Dave Hodgins >> > > Yeah..Because 56.6K is going to be useful.. That's, quite possibly, > the dumbest suggestion anyone could have made.. > > The simple speed delay as one modem converts electrical impulses to > audio, back to electrical, through the phone lines, back to audio, and > then back to electrical is going to take a FUCKTON more time than his > 1000 mile current trip. The signal was always electrical, and I can tell you that at the times we used it, there was no noticeable delay (yes, I used a modem to connect over 2000Km, submarine cable included). There are other issues, like bandwidth. And that the old POTS network had a very small delay (there were standards to comply with), but more importantly, the delay was constant during the entire connection - something Internet can not guarantee. -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Johann Beretta <beretta@nun-ya-bizness.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-06-10 00:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <rbq331$aul$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #4592 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On 6/5/20 6:34 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote: > > The signal was always electrical, and I can tell you that at the times > we used it, there was no noticeable delay (yes, I used a modem to > connect over 2000Km, submarine cable included). There are other issues, > like bandwidth. And that the old POTS network had a very small delay > (there were standards to comply with), but more importantly, the delay > was constant during the entire connection - something Internet can not > guarantee. > > No. Well, okay.. TECHNICALLY.. But the electrical impulses have to be down converted to the range acceptable to POTS. There's a reason why you can hear your modem chattering away when you pick up your telephone. All of those electrical signals are within the range that can be converted to audio by a simple speaker.. That's a pretty freakin' narrow range.. So I'll concede that you are correct technically, but I was trying to avoid a paragraph on the whole conversion / down-sampling process.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-06-10 12:52 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ojq6rg-g1h.ln1@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #4615 |
On 10/06/2020 09.45, Johann Beretta wrote: > On 6/5/20 6:34 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote: > >> >> The signal was always electrical, and I can tell you that at the times >> we used it, there was no noticeable delay (yes, I used a modem to >> connect over 2000Km, submarine cable included). There are other issues, >> like bandwidth. And that the old POTS network had a very small delay >> (there were standards to comply with), but more importantly, the delay >> was constant during the entire connection - something Internet can not >> guarantee. >> >> > > No. Well, okay.. TECHNICALLY.. But the electrical impulses have to be > down converted to the range acceptable to POTS. There's a reason why you > can hear your modem chattering away when you pick up your telephone. For human feedback. The modem connected a tiny speaker to the line, so that if you hit by error the wrong number at the other end and there is a human, you hear the voice. But there is no electrical - audio - electrical conversion in these modems, it is all electrical, not as in the primitive modems where you actually put the handset into rubber cups with microphone and speaker coupling. The last modems that were in use, like the V90 types, used electrical signals that could not really be converted to audio, they were stretching the limits. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ITU-T_V-series_recommendations> +++............ * V.90 is an ITU-T recommendation for a modem, allowing 56 kbit/s digital download and 33.6 kbit/s analog upload. It replaced two vendor standards (K56flex and X2) and was designed to allow modems from both prior standards to be flash upgraded to support it. It was developed between January 1995 and September 1995. It is also known as V.Last as it was anticipated to be the last standard for modems operating near the channel capacity of POTS lines to be developed. V.90 is generally used in concert with the V.42bis compression standard. A follow-on standard, V.92, was developed later in 1996 to replace V.90. * V.92 is an ITU-T recommendation, titled Enhancements to Recommendation V.90, that establishes a modem standard allowing 56 kbit/s download, 48 kbit/s upload rates, and the new V.44 compression method. V.92 was first presented in January 1996. It is intended to succeed the V.90 standards. With V.92, PCM is used for both the upstream and downstream connections; previously 56K modems only used PCM for downstream data. ............++- PCM is not really audio ;-) > All > of those electrical signals are within the range that can be converted > to audio by a simple speaker.. That's a pretty freakin' narrow range.. > > So I'll concede that you are correct technically, but I was trying to > avoid a paragraph on the whole conversion / down-sampling process. > :-) -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Johann Beretta <beretta@nun-ya-bizness.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-06-04 20:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <rbcei1$ja2$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #4552 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On 6/1/20 9:31 AM, David Brown wrote: > On 01/06/2020 17:53, Bob Tennent wrote: >> I need a low-latency connection to a colleague in the >> same city (Kingston Ont.) but who has a different ISP. <snip> > > > (When posting in an international newsgroup, it's a good idea to assume > that no one else has a clue what country you are in. If you think that > specific places are relevant to your post, state the country.) > He pretty clearly said he was in Kingston, Ontario... If someone can't get Canada out of that, they are a moron.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-06-05 15:38 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <8fupqg-u3o.ln1@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #4579 |
On 05/06/2020 05.35, Johann Beretta wrote: > On 6/1/20 9:31 AM, David Brown wrote: >> On 01/06/2020 17:53, Bob Tennent wrote: >>> I need a low-latency connection to a colleague in the >>> same city (Kingston Ont.) but who has a different ISP. > <snip> > >> >> >> (When posting in an international newsgroup, it's a good idea to assume >> that no one else has a clue what country you are in. If you think that >> specific places are relevant to your post, state the country.) >> > > He pretty clearly said he was in Kingston, Ontario... If someone can't > get Canada out of that, they are a moron. > If I tell you Lucena, Córdoba, do you know where it is without asking or googling? -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-06-05 15:46 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <20200605154637.0fab7c2d@nx-74205> |
| In reply to | #4593 |
On 05.06.2020 at 15:38, Carlos E.R. scribbled: > On 05/06/2020 05.35, Johann Beretta wrote: > > > He pretty clearly said he was in Kingston, Ontario... If someone > > can't get Canada out of that, they are a moron. > > If I tell you Lucena, Córdoba, do you know where it is without asking > or googling? Well, let's see... It sounds Spanish, so it MUST be in Mexico. :p -- With respect, = Aragorn =
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-06-06 00:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <4srqqg-2c9.ln1@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #4595 |
On 05/06/2020 15.46, Aragorn wrote: > On 05.06.2020 at 15:38, Carlos E.R. scribbled: > >> On 05/06/2020 05.35, Johann Beretta wrote: >> >>> He pretty clearly said he was in Kingston, Ontario... If someone >>> can't get Canada out of that, they are a moron. >> >> If I tell you Lucena, Córdoba, do you know where it is without asking >> or googling? > > Well, let's see... It sounds Spanish, so it MUST be in Mexico. :p LOL! Good one :-D -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-06-09 18:57 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnrdvmtn.23c.dan@djph.net> |
| In reply to | #4593 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 Carlos E.R. wrote: > On 05/06/2020 05.35, Johann Beretta wrote: >> On 6/1/20 9:31 AM, David Brown wrote: >>> On 01/06/2020 17:53, Bob Tennent wrote: >>>> I need a low-latency connection to a colleague in the >>>> same city (Kingston Ont.) but who has a different ISP. >> <snip> >> >>> >>> >>> (When posting in an international newsgroup, it's a good idea to assume >>> that no one else has a clue what country you are in. If you think that >>> specific places are relevant to your post, state the country.) >>> >> >> He pretty clearly said he was in Kingston, Ontario... If someone can't >> get Canada out of that, they are a moron. >> > > If I tell you Lucena, Córdoba, do you know where it is without asking or > googling? Spain, I think? -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCgAdFiEE3asj+xn6fYUcweBnbWVw5UznKGAFAl7f27YACgkQbWVw5Uzn KGBPpBAAslkoNxZ/fTg1vdmUIalcRruPvf27/2TzJK/IXXheVhXK3aurnN+pc3JW GtsuxoR5/bqrJeW/8128cWS3ZHdZLrGsA4pD8/JQubgJWSFd6tqX63/oPDfMVOqr vSuZaU3BIGX2tNdQaeSJdOG5i89UVFgp7bZhPr53XiLjbAFAlkPfRPjSeYZCzgeQ 54sCRhJlfQk5w5uOdXMl8Mc1q2NcDdJJ35EJu/lRzDyQCGALUh/tVT7kuqrc9cJN U+U295n5pArBY2BshB8PuhOfZUFsOTJzhQBGdWDcfP2IwlPH0crUNx/he0Y/zJ+0 MtEOUPuRbEQkroX1NdCEQGxEaOJ+QpQ06TCX2LSUppya/gapuG5tFiss0wMqYLZ8 49FHab6or9Xzb7Nz186PKK+JgBF2PgtMexs9isqPGnicriK5KbFExor5KlX8ax1p BetuuLTFpfHsbAxXCgBDvUbJdZv9Srx7GEg4PMViaXWNqKfAYFE1D60UjCZbd/2i xunKvqWcOtynBmtv2rXH3aizl8jp9us8aNKS249Upr6iRwj/IrKxlKsxbh34nG4K nqkKOGjYArWoVXlJsxvkEIBVG3p8t5tPjlJuRnZbanm4e9ckUronXnlKqoxSQP7n P6A/88iQwZv0JvRBYQnjf9nWE1wTWWg/zZ/gMj7p3QkUp1DOWkI= =elHw -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- |_|O|_| Github: https://github.com/dpurgert |_|_|O| PGP: DDAB 23FB 19FA 7D85 1CC1 E067 6D65 70E5 4CE7 2860 |O|O|O| Former PGP: 05CA 9A50 3F2E 1335 4DC5 4AEE 8E11 DDF3 1279 A281
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-06-09 21:08 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <3a35rg-iit.ln1@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #4608 |
On 09/06/2020 20.57, Dan Purgert wrote: > Carlos E.R. wrote: >> On 05/06/2020 05.35, Johann Beretta wrote: >>> On 6/1/20 9:31 AM, David Brown wrote: >>>> On 01/06/2020 17:53, Bob Tennent wrote: >>>>> I need a low-latency connection to a colleague in the >>>>> same city (Kingston Ont.) but who has a different ISP. >>> <snip> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> (When posting in an international newsgroup, it's a good idea to assume >>>> that no one else has a clue what country you are in. If you think that >>>> specific places are relevant to your post, state the country.) >>>> >>> >>> He pretty clearly said he was in Kingston, Ontario... If someone can't >>> get Canada out of that, they are a moron. >>> > >> If I tell you Lucena, Córdoba, do you know where it is without asking or >> googling? > > Spain, I think? Yep :-) -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-06-09 22:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnre020f.23c.dan@djph.net> |
| In reply to | #4609 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 Carlos E.R. wrote: > On 09/06/2020 20.57, Dan Purgert wrote: >> Carlos E.R. wrote: >>> [...] >>> If I tell you Lucena, Córdoba, do you know where it is without asking or >>> googling? >> >> Spain, I think? > > Yep :-) > Woohoo, 2 years of high school Spanish class were useful for ~something~ at last! -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCgAdFiEE3asj+xn6fYUcweBnbWVw5UznKGAFAl7gCA8ACgkQbWVw5Uzn KGDGig//Wc5Lo1meYarF1JJybk/IW10Huy9s+ooryk6l12yN3D4krJha9d44zDmo hLYMHVcfFNw8UgiURBQKVVQJB/8TR2rVbioRnlAuTp+8GwFgXfa3kYOxsEGi06qR JiwJomTTa+UJdBMFe2BjBmx2QLi77NKGZBWfmx0GQ48cQXpAfVX4yXAxHAIpSo4I oI1JzPLNtxVOSYUUnBakOnOpajVMiyMEsOl2K5Urs0mrNIdKnh8bKMFbCrEYldHz 99pWLaRvBxI197Sh4gOfJO3V+EjrDIH+kiO29xZHyIJhU6QnMDxWCq6ZxQOg748W MrMGY9WCB8lN6NsbKHgkp4r4jOKMNdhIv/bjbR7Tg3/FZpmtdfjdf/cy1yb3lO5y wUh39eODC4bfiH+u8WxV9H9DuKRl1HEBZhaBR9n/vaKK3bH5GBnn69pLzQKZ+Xox 2UiTc7Os5gDrU5wlkQuuiAYy6ZqoIpXXVUE3mNBGUjoNL6uvExyujPiZxvyLa7su u9lHnAupTV4UT/CRPp+bRR3E9Q3tUoDQ/5cBx8v6P2oMJltRXk1ElOzxHnEf1+Eh MBDeo7PWYH2oYtzsWfFYy4JmXrqn1kvwji/S2wq3Zn/GKll2qSzcpnedOTFKj5NX nvXoOAhrmkpTSsEUE5uhoibi+vMZNo0HcbWCxPLwkPxsUmEVs/E= =wOSB -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- |_|O|_| Github: https://github.com/dpurgert |_|_|O| PGP: DDAB 23FB 19FA 7D85 1CC1 E067 6D65 70E5 4CE7 2860 |O|O|O| Former PGP: 05CA 9A50 3F2E 1335 4DC5 4AEE 8E11 DDF3 1279 A281
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-06-10 00:36 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <uff5rg-ar8.ln1@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #4610 |
On 10/06/2020 00.07, Dan Purgert wrote: > Carlos E.R. wrote: >> On 09/06/2020 20.57, Dan Purgert wrote: >>> Carlos E.R. wrote: >>>> [...] >>>> If I tell you Lucena, Córdoba, do you know where it is without asking or >>>> googling? >>> >>> Spain, I think? > >> Yep :-) > > > Woohoo, 2 years of high school Spanish class were useful for ~something~ > at last! :-DDDDD -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Johann Beretta <beretta@nun-ya-bizness.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-06-10 00:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <rbq397$c0j$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #4593 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On 6/5/20 6:38 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote: > On 05/06/2020 05.35, Johann Beretta wrote: >> On 6/1/20 9:31 AM, David Brown wrote: >>> On 01/06/2020 17:53, Bob Tennent wrote: >>>> I need a low-latency connection to a colleague in the >>>> same city (Kingston Ont.) but who has a different ISP. >> <snip> >> >>> >>> >>> (When posting in an international newsgroup, it's a good idea to assume >>> that no one else has a clue what country you are in. If you think that >>> specific places are relevant to your post, state the country.) >>> >> >> He pretty clearly said he was in Kingston, Ontario... If someone can't >> get Canada out of that, they are a moron. >> > > If I tell you Lucena, Córdoba, do you know where it is without asking or > googling? > Well, considering the fact I'm on the internet, using USENET, It'd be pretty easy to paste it into Google, so why wouldn't I? So, since you said Lucena, Córdoba. I'm gonna go with Spain, because yes, I have access to Usenet AND Google..
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-06-05 15:45 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <20200605154521.01dbca0e@nx-74205> |
| In reply to | #4579 |
On 04.06.2020 at 20:35, Johann Beretta scribbled: > On 6/1/20 9:31 AM, David Brown wrote: > > On 01/06/2020 17:53, Bob Tennent wrote: > >> I need a low-latency connection to a colleague in the > >> same city (Kingston Ont.) but who has a different ISP. > <snip> > > > > > > > (When posting in an international newsgroup, it's a good idea to > > assume that no one else has a clue what country you are in. If you > > think that specific places are relevant to your post, state the > > country.) > > He pretty clearly said he was in Kingston, Ontario... If someone can't > get Canada out of that, they are a moron. No, he said "Kingston Ont.". A very smart person might know that "Ont." could possibly mean "Ontario", but for all we know, someone could think it's Kingston, Jamaica. And then there might or might not be something "Ont." over there. -- With respect, = Aragorn =
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-06-01 22:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <rb3v0e$ki6$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #4551 |
On 2020-06-01, Bob Tennent <rdtennent@tennent.ca> wrote: > I need a low-latency connection to a colleague in the > same city (Kingston Ont.) but who has a different ISP. > I've traced the route of packets and they go via Toronto, > Chicago, Buffalo, and finally back to Kingston (!). I've > asked tech support for my ISP and they say they can't do > anything about this. Is there anything I can do on my > system, such as routing packets directly to the final > destination or to the Buffalo site? The whole purpose of the design of the internet is to make routing as foolproof as possible. This means that the route from A to B for some reason has problems (back hoe digging up a cable, nuclear bomb obliterating city C between the two) different routes are chosed to that the packet can still, if possible get from A to B. Thus routes are dynamic, the next packet could well go to Montreal, to Boston, to Albany, to Toronto to Kingston. Why do you care? What is the latency you are getting? And you could always both get the same ISP, who might direct the packets more directly.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.networking
csiph-web